Most original EQ players have lamented the path MMOs have taken the past 15 years. I would be one of those. The Agnarr thread got me thinking, "How did we get here?" I thought it was worth discussion.
*snip*
There are many more things I could go on about, but that's enough for now. I guess my point is, in order to make a successful MMO (imo), devs should make decisions with this thought in mind, "does this feel realistic." If the answer is "no", they should rethink the decision.
/sigh. You know as well as I do most people have resigned themselves to concluding we're all just relics, nostalgia seeking rotworms. Delusional and not sensible.
For years I've asked myself "Is what I like just nostalgia from my first MMO?" Everquest was my first MMO. Oh yes I probably played Diablo before I played Everquest. I know I played Action Quake 2 a lot in 1998. But in all truth, Everquest was my first bonafide MMORPG.
My favorite MMO now is Wurm Online. But what bugs me is it has a lot in common with Everquest and Ultima ONline. I of course played Ultima Online in 1999, after I'd played Everquest. When I played Wurm Onilne in 2012, I was convinced it was the best most immersive MMO I'd ever played. Sure, the world didn't have the lore and dungeons and RPG features of Everquest, but it beat it in nearly every other way. But all that aside, am I drawn to it because it's similar to Everquest or Ultima Online?
My opinion is I have preferences which I've honed for 20 years. These preferences are built on all the games I've played. I've liked things in many different games. I liked things about Diablo, Action Quake 2, Everquest and Ultima Online and the sinlge player games like Master of Orion and Myst. But the thing is, I don't chagne dramatically just because I get older. The end result is, I'm drawn to games similar to older games because they share traits and my preference for those traits isn't changing much. So call it what you want, but just labeling it nostalgia is explaining it away, expecting it'll go away, but in fact it won't, it doesn't, it keeps coming back.
EDIT: What gets missed in this "It's all rose tinted glasses!" discussion is I can recall back in 1999 not likin Everquest's strict class system. I preferred Ultima Online's skill-based system. I also preferred the sandbox in Ultima Online, being able to build your own house and employ merchants to sell your wares. If I ONLY like my first MMO then how come there were many things in Ultima Online I preferred? I also favored the items in Diablo. I liked how they were random and I liked gear sets. I did like unique items, but I thought Everquest would have benefited from some random items too. I liked the first-person shooting in Quake 2, it was so fast paced and tense. Everquest was slower more methodical. Playing Everquest didn't make me suddenly not like it.
I don't believe any particular expansion killed EQ, nor do I agree with anybody that suggests PoP was a bad expansion due to Planes of Knowledge and faster traveling. I was a druid at the time and I was still getting tons of porting requests even with PoK books. Also worth noting that EQ's population peaked at around LDoN expansion in 2003, so contrary to beliefs EQ did not slow down at Luclin/PoP expansion, it actually grew faster.
Actually, EQ stopped growing after Velious (around 450k, though developers claimed it was over half a million during Velious), and actually even lost subscribers for the first time following Ykesha (early 2003). It did spike back up for Gates of Discord before plummeting when EQ2 and WoW launched.
We can of course assume some of that was related to other options coming out like DAoC, but it's hard to argue that SOE's shift in focus between 2002-2004 did not adversely effect those numbers, even prior to EQ2 and WoW.
That's incorrect, Velious came out in 2000, EQ did not have 450k in 2000. EQ was at around 270k during Velious, this is Verant's press release in August 2000:
SAN DIEGO, CA - August 1, 2000 - Sony Online Entertainment and Verant Interactive, announced today that its highly anticipated EverQuestâ„¢: The Scars of Veliousâ„¢ expansion pack, which is the second add-on to the most successful online role playing game ever released - EverQuest - will be available in Winter 2000. The expansion pack will provide the more than 270,000 current EverQuest gamers with an all-new frozen continent, more than 16 new adventure zones, numerous new creatures, additional spells and weapons and an enhanced 3D game engine. ==
And this is SOE's press release for Luclin launch December 2001:
Sony Online Entertainment - 12/03/2001
Sony Online Entertainment Inc., a worldwide leader in massively multiplayer online gaming, announced today that EverQuest®: The Shadows of Luclin™ will be available at retail stores tomorrow. The enchanting moonscape of Luclin will provide more than 400,000 current EverQuest players with over 27 new adventure zones, all-new items, creatures, spells, a new playable character race and rideable horses. Supported by a complete graphic overhaul, the enhanced gameplay featured in Luclin will allow EverQuest players to witness their world in unprecedented splendor.
==
SOE December 10th 2001 Luclin sells well with concurrent user number:
Sony Online Entertainment Inc., today announced that EverQuest®: The Shadows of Luclin™ sold more than 120,000 units in the first day at retail, making this one of the largest PC game debuts in history. Luclin, the newest expansion pack to EverQuest, the world's most successful massively multiplayer online role-playing game, was made available nationwide on December 4, 2001. Set against a sweeping moonscape, The Shadows of Luclin provides players with more than 27 new adventure zones, all-new items, over 400 new quests, creatures, spells, a new playable character race and rideable horses. Currently, EverQuest boasts more than 400,000 active subscribers and has as many as 98,000 online adventurers exploring the fantasy world of Norrath simultaneously.
== This is July 2002 when EQ broke concurrent users record:
Sony Online Entertainment - 07/30/2002
Sony Online Entertainment Inc. (SOE) announced today that EverQuest®, the most successful online PC role-playing game in history, hosted a milestone number of simultaneous players over the weekend. More than 100,000 clerics, half-elves, gnomes, and other fantasy characters created one of the largest assemblies of game players to date.
"EverQuest currently has more than 430,000 active subscribers with new fans logging on daily," said Scott McDaniel, vice president of marketing, Sony Online Entertainment. "With recent free additions to the game, including a new user-friendly interface, and more areas to explore, we are confident that EverQuest will continue to dominate the online role-playing game segment." ==
EQ growth announcement after launch of Ykesha March 2003:
Sony Online Entertainment - 03/05/2003
Sony Online Entertainment Inc. (SOE), a worldwide leader in massively multiplayer online gaming, announced today that it has seen significant growth in the number of simultaneous user base and recently set a new record of 118,000 simultaneous players, almost four years after the game was launched. In addition, the company is opening a brand new EverQuest® server, Maelin Starpyre, and for the first time ever, will offer full character transfers from existing servers including all equipment, acquired items and experience. Transfers are subject to certain restrictions.
With more than 430,000 active subscribers, EverQuest, developed and published by Sony Online Entertainment Inc., launched in 1999 and has since become a gaming and cultural phenomenon. Continuing to grow with award-winning expansions The Ruins of Kunark®, The Scars of Velious®, The Shadows of Luclin™ and The Planes of Power™, EverQuest proves to be the largest 3D fantasy world ever created online. ==
And this marks the last time SOE announced EQ subscription numbers March 2004, and it showed a dip from 2003 announcements:
Sony Online Entertainment - 03/15/2004
Sony Online Entertainment Inc. (SOE), a worldwide leader in massively multiplayer online gaming, today begins celebrations in honor of the fifth year of EverQuest, North America's biggest massively multiplayer online (MMO) game. Since its launch on March 16, 1999, EverQuest and its expansions have sold over 2.5 million copies worldwide and continues to be one of the gaming industry's biggest and most influential titles. Translated into seven languages, with a global player base of more than 420,000 people, EverQuest is one of the largest and most dynamic online fantasy worlds ever created.
EverQuest averages about 250,000 new subscribers every year. Currently, there are more than 420,000 people playing the game. ==
TL;DR EQ grew and peaked in 2003, and after that it started to lose players. Contrary to some die hard old school EQ players like to believe, EQ did not peak during classic, Kunark, or Velious (the original 3 that some swear by). It kept growing beyond expansions that they personally didn't like. By the way you can read all SOE press releases here: https://www.sony.com/en_us/SCA/company-news/press-releases/sony-online-entertainment/2001.html
The 500k or 750k numbers tossed around was SOE's press releases counting all SOE subscribers, not subscribers to a specific game. SOE's release of a competing product in EQ2 screwed EQ. EQ needed an engine upgrade, facelift, modernized UI/features, and support for fun things such as PvP. SOE split its playerbase and eventually people left for greener pastures.
Played: EQ1-AC1-DAOC-FFXI-L2-EQ2-WoW-LOTR-VG-WAR-GW2-ESO-BDO Waiting For: CU & Vanilla WoW
Since there are more MMO's, and more people playing MMO's, than ever, how can they be in decline?
Nice graph, did you read the disclaimer though?
Disclaimer
Dispite being carefull and doing the necessary research, MMOData.net cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here as it is based on various sources which could be incomplete, inaccurate or otherwise unreliable. Furthermore, all estimates are the opinion of MMOData.net and should be treated as such.
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
Maybe people have similar experiences with WoW, but I fail to understand how that could be. I played it for only a very short time and it struck me as "EQ light". It had fine graphics, a fine world, ok gameplay, but it was so dang easy. Why would anybody want to exist in an immersive fantasy world where you can fly through levels in no time? That's probably where the split between casual gamer and serious gamer began to divide and I understand that peoples' play time is limited and I have no problem with games catering to that. But if my goal is to become a character in a fantasy world, I prefer to go all in and immerse myself completely; not just go in waist deep.
Offering an alternate perspective. And this is coming from an old school, "EQ was my first" Everquest player. When WoW launched, many didn't consier it "EQ light". Many EQ players at the time consider WoW an "EQ on steroids". Remember this was vanilla WoW we're talking about here.
Vanilla WoW supported large scale raids (40 players), with pretty raid UI, engaging and smooth combat, and a seamless world without "zoning please wait". On PvP servers it was even more exciting as players fought Alliance vs Horde, pushing zergs of players back & forth between towns and cities. Action happened anywhere and everywhere.
Late level dungeons such as Upper BRS was like a mini raid, something EQ didn't have. EQ was always a single group or raid sort of content. Upper BRS supported 15 players, it required precise pulls, crowd control, good healing, good split tanking, and very often creative kiting. A bad cc meant a wipe, it was in every way very much like EQ, but simply more engaging and more fun. Especially with scripted events and bosses.
WoW fixed up what was tedious & outdated about EQ, and made a game that felt like EQ but simply performed, looked, and functioned better. It was a fun game if people could take salt out of their mouths and actually gave it a good try back then. Your mileage may vary but WoW was fun for me up through Burning Crusade 'til the launch of Wotlk (I actually played Wotlk a bit and enjoyed it somewhat but I didn't finish it).
EQ could've competed longer on the market and lived longer had SOE not created an EQ2 and put EQ on milk status. For people clinging on to old school EQ, it's easy to forget what made EQ great. And no 12 hour loot camps, kill stealing, training, staring at the spellbook, "zoning please wait", and ninja looting weren't it.
Played: EQ1-AC1-DAOC-FFXI-L2-EQ2-WoW-LOTR-VG-WAR-GW2-ESO-BDO Waiting For: CU & Vanilla WoW
Actually, EQ stopped growing after Velious (around 450k, though developers claimed it was over half a million during Velious), and actually even lost subscribers for the first time following Ykesha (early 2003). It did spike back up for Gates of Discord before plummeting when EQ2 and WoW launched.
We can of course assume some of that was related to other options coming out like DAoC, but it's hard to argue that SOE's shift in focus between 2002-2004 did not adversely effect those numbers, even prior to EQ2 and WoW.
That's incorrect, Velious came out in 2000, EQ did not have 450k in 2000. EQ was at around 270k during Velious, this is Verant's press release in August 2000:
SAN DIEGO, CA - August 1, 2000 - Sony Online Entertainment and Verant Interactive, announced today that its highly anticipated EverQuestâ„¢: The Scars of Veliousâ„¢ expansion pack, which is the second add-on to the most successful online role playing game ever released - EverQuest - will be available in Winter 2000. The expansion pack will provide the more than 270,000 current EverQuest gamers with an all-new frozen continent, more than 16 new adventure zones, numerous new creatures, additional spells and weapons and an enhanced 3D game engine. ==
And this is SOE's press release for Luclin launch December 2001:
Sony Online Entertainment - 12/03/2001
Sony Online Entertainment Inc., a worldwide leader in massively multiplayer online gaming, announced today that EverQuest®: The Shadows of Luclin™ will be available at retail stores tomorrow. The enchanting moonscape of Luclin will provide more than 400,000 current EverQuest players with over 27 new adventure zones, all-new items, creatures, spells, a new playable character race and rideable horses. Supported by a complete graphic overhaul, the enhanced gameplay featured in Luclin will allow EverQuest players to witness their world in unprecedented splendor.
==
SOE December 10th 2001 Luclin sells well with concurrent user number:
Sony Online Entertainment Inc., today announced that EverQuest®: The Shadows of Luclin™ sold more than 120,000 units in the first day at retail, making this one of the largest PC game debuts in history. Luclin, the newest expansion pack to EverQuest, the world's most successful massively multiplayer online role-playing game, was made available nationwide on December 4, 2001. Set against a sweeping moonscape, The Shadows of Luclin provides players with more than 27 new adventure zones, all-new items, over 400 new quests, creatures, spells, a new playable character race and rideable horses. Currently, EverQuest boasts more than 400,000 active subscribers and has as many as 98,000 online adventurers exploring the fantasy world of Norrath simultaneously.
== This is July 2002 when EQ broke concurrent users record:
Sony Online Entertainment - 07/30/2002
Sony Online Entertainment Inc. (SOE) announced today that EverQuest®, the most successful online PC role-playing game in history, hosted a milestone number of simultaneous players over the weekend. More than 100,000 clerics, half-elves, gnomes, and other fantasy characters created one of the largest assemblies of game players to date.
"EverQuest currently has more than 430,000 active subscribers with new fans logging on daily," said Scott McDaniel, vice president of marketing, Sony Online Entertainment. "With recent free additions to the game, including a new user-friendly interface, and more areas to explore, we are confident that EverQuest will continue to dominate the online role-playing game segment." ==
EQ growth announcement after launch of Ykesha March 2003:
Sony Online Entertainment - 03/05/2003
Sony Online Entertainment Inc. (SOE), a worldwide leader in massively multiplayer online gaming, announced today that it has seen significant growth in the number of simultaneous user base and recently set a new record of 118,000 simultaneous players, almost four years after the game was launched. In addition, the company is opening a brand new EverQuest® server, Maelin Starpyre, and for the first time ever, will offer full character transfers from existing servers including all equipment, acquired items and experience. Transfers are subject to certain restrictions.
With more than 430,000 active subscribers, EverQuest, developed and published by Sony Online Entertainment Inc., launched in 1999 and has since become a gaming and cultural phenomenon. Continuing to grow with award-winning expansions The Ruins of Kunark®, The Scars of Velious®, The Shadows of Luclin™ and The Planes of Power™, EverQuest proves to be the largest 3D fantasy world ever created online. ==
And this marks the last time SOE announced EQ subscription numbers March 2004, and it showed a dip from 2003 announcements:
Sony Online Entertainment - 03/15/2004
Sony Online Entertainment Inc. (SOE), a worldwide leader in massively multiplayer online gaming, today begins celebrations in honor of the fifth year of EverQuest, North America's biggest massively multiplayer online (MMO) game. Since its launch on March 16, 1999, EverQuest and its expansions have sold over 2.5 million copies worldwide and continues to be one of the gaming industry's biggest and most influential titles. Translated into seven languages, with a global player base of more than 420,000 people, EverQuest is one of the largest and most dynamic online fantasy worlds ever created.
EverQuest averages about 250,000 new subscribers every year. Currently, there are more than 420,000 people playing the game. ==
TL;DR EQ grew and peaked in 2003, and after that it started to lose players. Contrary to some die hard old school EQ players like to believe, EQ did not peak during classic, Kunark, or Velious (the original 3 that some swear by). It kept growing beyond expansions that they personally didn't like. By the way you can read all SOE press releases here: https://www.sony.com/en_us/SCA/company-news/press-releases/sony-online-entertainment/2001.html
The 500k or 750k numbers tossed around was SOE's press releases counting all SOE subscribers, not subscribers to a specific game. SOE's release of a competing product in EQ2 screwed EQ. EQ needed an engine upgrade, facelift, modernized UI/features, and support for fun things such as PvP. SOE split its playerbase and eventually people left for greener pastures.
Velious went until December 2001, so limiting it to only 2000 is actually what is inaccurate. EQ hit over 400k during Velious (as in the press release before Luclin), and never went much further...
When a game is growing at that rate, and then basically flat-lined staying around 400-450 and even losing players at times, that is not evidence that things got better. That is a drastic loss of momentum. There was a reason for that. The game changed.
Since there are more MMO's, and more people playing MMO's, than ever, how can they be in decline?
Im talking about Quality over quantity. Plus if you look at the year 2011 MMOs started to decline its now 2017. People are still playing MMOs just not as many say back when BC or WOTLK where live.
The MMORPG genre hasn't gotten worse. They've tried to improve the more painful parts of the genre, but in doing that removed some of the charm. Having travel be limited sucked, but also added an economy for taxi classes. It's a bit weird because objectively MMORPG games are better, but they lack the same "soul". I think that soul is grouping, danger &having to make friends. I personally would love an old EQ style game with modern enhancements (not just graphics)... like anti camping mechanics we used to dream about. I want to be the support guy that requires a group.
The MMORPG genre hasn't gotten worse. They've tried to improve the more painful parts of the genre, but in doing that removed some of the charm. Having travel be limited sucked, but also added an economy for taxi classes. It's a bit weird because objectively MMORPG games are better, but they lack the same "soul". I think that soul is grouping, danger &having to make friends. I personally would love an old EQ style game with modern enhancements (not just graphics)... like anti camping mechanics we used to dream about. I want to be the support guy that requires a group.
I mostly agree with you, I was not (am not I guess) a fan of EQ 1, but I do love the idea of needing a group and needing the different classes. From Support through ranged Dps etc. Involving more people in a group, in my opinion, is a really cool idea. However, it should not be required. In other words, I should not have to sit as a healer (or any other specialist) and wait for the 'perfect' group composition before I can head out. Something along the lines of bonuses for 'perfect' groups and no penalties for 'good enough' groups would be the way to go in my opinion.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
yes EQ1 was an amazing time for mmorpg gaming but the genre did advance imo big time with FFXi both better looking and better gameplay/class/combat structure.Then EQ2 added nicer graphics albeit SOE continued lack of polish. However after EQ2 i have not seen an improvement on the mmoprpg genre,just bits and pieces but those same games have been worse in otehr areas of game design so 5% improvement and 95% worse really shows me the industry has been terribly stagnant.
With the high cost of game design,there is a way bigger push towards CHEAP game design and the mobile market has ruined it even more because that genre is making multi millions from really cheap games.
So how do we get the mmorpg genre to advance and improve when so many markets are getting rich with easy street?Really tough question,i can't think of much outside of getting huge sponsors to back these games with exclusives to promote the sponsors.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Speaking for MYSELF, since it seems you have to say that on these forums now....
People are really sensitive around here, make sure you never use 'we' or 'they' either....even using the word 'people' might be controversial. Do it at your own risk.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
The decline of MMORPG's happened almost immediately after the first few expansions of EQ came out. A few notable exceptions would be Dark Age of Camelot and EvE online.
Everquest was truly special, not only because it was the first 1st person 3D MMORPG, but that is was challenging and made you think.
EQ: There were no maps. After EQ: Maps are standard. EQ actually forced you to explore and remember areas. Cartography was an actual hobby for some players. I cannot stress how important it is to NOT have maps in a fantasy game. Running through Kithicor forest for the first time at night and making it without dying is what makes a world experience. Meeting up with a friend who traveled from another continent without a map is what makes a world experience.
EQ: Good death penalty. After EQ: Death means very little. If you don't risk anything, there is little excitement in knowing that no matter what you do, everything will be fine. A strong death penalty is a cornerstone of a great game.
EQ: Extremely diverse classes that don't overlap. After EQ: everyone can almost do everything. Being a specialist is a GOOD thing. It makes you proud of your craft. It makes you proud of your character. You have a strong identity to your character. Something you don't get in today's jack of all trades, I can solo everything classes.
EQ: You needed a group, or even multiple groups (raids) to do a lot of stiff. After EQ: In many MMORPG's today you could not need to interact or talk to a single person the entire time and get far. Socialization and working as a team to accomplish DIFFICULT tasks is what makes a great game.
EQ: In early EQ, travel took time and/or social interaction. After EQ: you basically just blink and can be anywhere you want.
EQ had a different kind of player. A player that was intelligent, patient, cunning and could dedicate a lot of time to endeavors. Today's MMORPG's are about instant gratification, hand holding, and basically any instrument that can be devised to remove difficulty, thought and skill.
For myself, the greatest game ever made was original EQ and into Kunark, slightly leaning into Velious. Oh, and being a Tallon' Zek PvP EQ player, the dynamics of EQ PVP, with zone control and faction warfare was incredible.
If Pantheon can even create half of the Everquest experience, I'll sign up.
We got here by people bitching to make things better, some bitching about too much grind, some bitching about not enough loot, some bitching about death penalties, etc, etc. and vice versa.
These days though they bitch about wanting things back the way they used to be.... irony, I don't think so.
People just like to bitch about things they don't like when it would be better if they shut their mouths and went elsewhere, cause one mans trash is another mans treasure. Constructive criticism should be...... constructive, unfortunately old school developers listened to alot of these asshats that would spout inane bs about changing this and that (blah, blah) and ruined many great MMO games worth their salt.
Ultimately it's about making money and this industry is still relatively young. Just wish people could come together to support some of that classic old school shit we used to love and quit bitching when we have a living breathing virtual world we can live in to escape the real world long enough to not go insane.
I first noticed things were getting out of sort when I played EQ2. That game removed so much of what I liked in EQ1, to the point I never felt it should be called EQ at all. I realize some people like EQ2, and if they do, that's fine, but I still feel it is misnamed and no true successor to Everquest.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
I first noticed things were getting out of sort when I played EQ2. That game removed so much of what I liked in EQ1, to the point I never felt it should be called EQ at all. I realize some people like EQ2, and if they do, that's fine, but I still feel it is misnamed and no true successor to Everquest.
It is not and never was. I jumped ship from EQ to EQ2 as soon as it launched, and it never felt like EQ. It was like a different kind of game. But to be fair I liked EQ2 Vanilla as much as I liked EQ, for different reasons. Even if there were features I missed from EQ, I stuck with EQ2 because of the better graphics and much...much better UI.
For me the UI is very important, I even made a thread on the subject, I really hope Pantheon gets the UI right and don't understimate it (Like SotA did).
Everquest was truly special, not only because it was the first 1st person 3D MMORPG, but that is was challenging and made you think.
EQ: There were no maps. After EQ: Maps are standard. EQ actually forced you to explore and remember areas. Cartography was an actual hobby for some players. I cannot stress how important it is to NOT have maps in a fantasy game. Running through Kithicor forest for the first time at night and making it without dying is what makes a world experience. Meeting up with a friend who traveled from another continent without a map is what makes a world experience.
EQ: Extremely diverse classes that don't overlap. After EQ: everyone can almost do everything. Being a specialist is a GOOD thing. It makes you proud of your craft. It makes you proud of your character. You have a strong identity to your character. Something you don't get in today's jack of all trades, I can solo everything classes.
If Pantheon can even create half of the Everquest experience, I'll sign up.
Absolutely! In fact, I was going to mention auto-mapping in my original post, but it was already long enough. If the goal is realism, then auto-mapping is a terrible idea. Our brains don't work that way. That's why I said in my follow-up post that I am able to remember many of the landmarks in the original EQ because that's how I learned my way around the world. It was tedious at first, but once I had memorized the landscape, it was very satisfying to know that I had gotten the lay of the land.
I do believe thee is a way to reach a compromise on this matter; make mapping a skill that can be acquired. And then make it unique to the ranger class. And even then, don't do it the way games usually do it where they place a big dot on the map that says, "You are here!". Even in real life, maps don't do that (maybe GPS systems, but not maps). So, once a ranger enters a new area, if he has the skill, the computer starts mapping it for him. But it simply maps the land, no dots. That way, when he pulls up the map, he can see what the area looks like but sill has to figure out where he is based on landmarks. It keeps the game realistic and makes the ranger class more highly valued.
Which leads me to your other point about class diversity. I completely agree and totally reject the concept of "class balancing". I understand why balancing is done, it makes each class self-sufficient so they can go off and solo on their own. It's also considered necessary in PvP games. But I like the idea of each class having their own strengths and weaknesses because it's more realistic. I remember very early in my days of playing EQ, I asked my brother (who had started playing before me) who he thought the strongest class in the game was. He said he thought it was close between necros and enchanters. I played a ranger and it didn't bother me a bit that there were other classes out there that might be more powerful than mine. All I concentrated on was making my character as powerful as possible.
I first noticed things were getting out of sort when I played EQ2. That game removed so much of what I liked in EQ1, to the point I never felt it should be called EQ at all. I realize some people like EQ2, and if they do, that's fine, but I still feel it is misnamed and no true successor to Everquest.
I gave EQ2 two months at release then went to WOW. Spent at ton of time in wow.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
Velious went until December 2001, so limiting it to only 2000 is actually what is inaccurate. EQ hit over 400k during Velious (as in the press release before Luclin), and never went much further...
When a game is growing at that rate, and then basically flat-lined staying around 400-450 and even losing players at times, that is not evidence that things got better. That is a drastic loss of momentum. There was a reason for that. The game changed.
There's no alternative facts to it, EQ did not peak during Velious, it grew and peaked after Velious. Your statement about EQ peaking during Velious was and still is wrong.
What changed was very simply more MMO's came out, and EQ was no longer that "new, unique, one of a kind" toy. The amount of people playing MMORPG's at the time was much smaller than today. So when DAOC launched in October 2001 and grew to 250k subscribers during its peak, also FFXI's launch in May 2002, they all siphoned from existing EQ players. I was among many who branched off away from EQ to play all those new MMO's that came out after it.
You could blame the changes within the game. But if we are talking population graphs and peaks, you are wrong when you stated EQ peaked at Velious. Going by official press releases, EQ's subscriber count continued to grow past 2001 through 2003, and only started to dip in 2004. EQ breaking the concurrent user record in July 2002 and again in March 2003 also proves its continued growth.
Did the growth slow down? Sure. But again, more MMO's came out, more choices came out. Even SOE stated that EQ gained an average of 250k new subscribers each year from 1999-2004, so its growth didn't necessarily slow down. But rather more people branched off to play other MMO's. This is why it really hurt EQ when EQ2 launched and split the Everquest fanbase.
Only reason I went through all this and showed old press releases is too often die hard old old school EQ players like to prop up EQ trilogy and suggest somehow EQ's downfall was due to Luclin or PoP expansions. I myself left EQ during Velious to play DAOC, only came back halfway through Luclin to try out the new expansion. Bottom line is EQ was this new, unique, one of a kind game when it launched. But then it wasn't, more MMO's came out, people started to have more choices. This along with how SOE steered away from their flagship to build an EQ2 hurt EQ more than anything else. Smed made bad decisions with SOE, he ran SOE to the ground, EQ and many other games suffered as a result.
Played: EQ1-AC1-DAOC-FFXI-L2-EQ2-WoW-LOTR-VG-WAR-GW2-ESO-BDO Waiting For: CU & Vanilla WoW
There's no alternative facts to it, EQ did not peak during Velious, it grew and peaked after Velious. Your statement about EQ peaking during Velious was and still is wrong.
Even if subscriptions peaked after Velious, that's no evidence that the game improved. I know when Luclin was released, I was expecting the same type of advancement I saw with Kunark and Velious. And when I didn't, I marked it off as an aberration (besides, I thought it was only a slight drop-off in quality). And Sony wasted little time in announcing Planes of Power. There was a lot of excitement and anticipation for that expansion. I mean new zones where you travel to the homes of Norrath's deities? Who wouldn't want that? And even PoP was fun for awhile. But only for a short while. Two inferior expansions was enough for me though. I saw it as a trend, not an aberration.
I'm willing to bet Blizzard learned a lot from the way SOE handled their MMO library.
We've all seen how whenever Blizzard releases a new game, they make a strong effort to avoid genres they already have a foothold in.
SOE on the other hand had a bad habit of cannibalizing its own products. It wasn't just EQ2, but games like SWG, etc., also drew people away from EQ.
All that said, WoW really ate EQ alive from my little pocket world. Pretty much every one of my friends who was still in EQ bailed when WoW went into beta/launched. That was when I left EQ, to join all my friends.
Absolutely! In fact, I was going to mention auto-mapping in my original post, but it was already long enough. If the goal is realism, then auto-mapping is a terrible idea. Our brains don't work that way. That's why I said in my follow-up post that I am able to remember many of the landmarks in the original EQ because that's how I learned my way around the world. It was tedious at first, but once I had memorized the landscape, it was very satisfying to know that I had gotten the lay of the land.
I do believe thee is a way to reach a compromise on this matter; make mapping a skill that can be acquired. And then make it unique to the ranger class. And even then, don't do it the way games usually do it where they place a big dot on the map that says, "You are here!". Even in real life, maps don't do that (maybe GPS systems, but not maps). So, once a ranger enters a new area, if he has the skill, the computer starts mapping it for him. But it simply maps the land, no dots. That way, when he pulls up the map, he can see what the area looks like but sill has to figure out where he is based on landmarks. It keeps the game realistic and makes the ranger class more highly valued.
*snip*
That's still automapping. I also don't like how just the ranger has it. You know there're other ways to make Rangers useful. In Everquest, one way was to have mobs run at low health (re: snare). Another use was in overland areas where track could speed up finding roamers. One of hte failures of Everquest was to not have enough diverse content so the hybrids would be more useful in groups.
The problem with restricted or absent maps is players complain about it so much. It's almost impossible to have any restriction. It requires so much guts and stubborness nobody wants to do it.
Wurm Online is one of hte few MMO's I know of restricting its maps. In fact, when I started in 2012, it had no maps, except raw map dumps on the web 6 months old. Keep in mind the map in Wurm Online is always changing because of random fluctuations in the code and player terraforming and building. It added a map in 2014 but it only shows minimal information and has no GPS. Rolf, being lead developer, gets a lot of flack even from the niche community. I support the restrictions.
So the result is my hopes are very low for any future MMO to have restrictions. If this very niche MMO is strained to do it, bigger ones won't.
One of hte problems with in-game maps is they don't do very good at handling 3d maps with lots of (vertical) twists and turns. Everquest handled this by having a z-level and still it was cumbersome. This makes me think of the old automaps in Daggerfall for the dungeons. They were confusing. I think the negative tendency then is for MMO's to oversimplify their maps to counter this "problem".
Personally, I think a map system should be something like this: 1. No GPS (dots on the map) or in-game radar. This is huge. 2. A simple to understand data format for the map files 3. Reliance on players outside the game to improve the maps 4. Allow players in the game to copy and trade their maps for a price (or free) 5. The developers can release some base maps for major regions to get players going 6. No complex z-level in-game map viewer or automapping. * A distant example of what I"m thinking of are the player-made maps for Anarchy Online * (cont) Z-level is handled by showing the different levels on the borders of the map * (cont) Admittedly, this still doesn't handle the very complex z-level maps * So the map viewer is basically just a variable-size image viewer * (cont) The image is linked to a regional identification (like qeynos_sewer1)
My opinions only. I only speak for myself. Also of course my ideal MMO's have a sandbox too, like Wurm Online. Even though I look forward to Pantheon and support it fully, I still wish it had terraformable terrain and player-made villages. I understand MMO's can't do everything. They need to focus to do well.
Velious went until December 2001, so limiting it to only 2000 is actually what is inaccurate. EQ hit over 400k during Velious (as in the press release before Luclin), and never went much further...
When a game is growing at that rate, and then basically flat-lined staying around 400-450 and even losing players at times, that is not evidence that things got better. That is a drastic loss of momentum. There was a reason for that. The game changed.
There's no alternative facts to it, EQ did not peak during Velious, it grew and peaked after Velious. Your statement about EQ peaking during Velious was and still is wrong.
What changed was very simply more MMO's came out, and EQ was no longer that "new, unique, one of a kind" toy. The amount of people playing MMORPG's at the time was much smaller than today. So when DAOC launched in October 2001 and grew to 250k subscribers during its peak, also FFXI's launch in May 2002, they all siphoned from existing EQ players. I was among many who branched off away from EQ to play all those new MMO's that came out after it.
You could blame the changes within the game. But if we are talking population graphs and peaks, you are wrong when you stated EQ peaked at Velious. Going by official press releases, EQ's subscriber count continued to grow past 2001 through 2003, and only started to dip in 2004. EQ breaking the concurrent user record in July 2002 and again in March 2003 also proves its continued growth.
Did the growth slow down? Sure. But again, more MMO's came out, more choices came out. Even SOE stated that EQ gained an average of 250k new subscribers each year from 1999-2004, so its growth didn't necessarily slow down. But rather more people branched off to play other MMO's. This is why it really hurt EQ when EQ2 launched and split the Everquest fanbase.
Only reason I went through all this and showed old press releases is too often die hard old old school EQ players like to prop up EQ trilogy and suggest somehow EQ's downfall was due to Luclin or PoP expansions. I myself left EQ during Velious to play DAOC, only came back halfway through Luclin to try out the new expansion. Bottom line is EQ was this new, unique, one of a kind game when it launched. But then it wasn't, more MMO's came out, people started to have more choices. This along with how SOE steered away from their flagship to build an EQ2 hurt EQ more than anything else. Smed made bad decisions with SOE, he ran SOE to the ground, EQ and many other games suffered as a result.
TLDR. Don't need alternative facts, and don't put words in my mouth. EQ growth rocketed up until Luclin launched, and then it became stagnant. It actually peaked in 2004 when it rocketed up and down with GoD, which I already pointed out.
To give you an out, I will say I believe Velious was actually part of the problem and it can actually be seen on the sub graphs. The issue was that the game was changing from a group-centric game, to a raid centric game. Velious had enough group content and progression to keep people occupied, but really was more about raiding. Catering to raiders was a bad decision, because they were the minority in EQ. Being funneled into "end game" was not what EQ was ever supposed to be about.
After that, that mistake became even more pronounced in the expansions that followed, while accessibility was introduced and EQ was downgraded from a virtual world to just a video game.
Comments
For years I've asked myself "Is what I like just nostalgia from my first MMO?" Everquest was my first MMO. Oh yes I probably played Diablo before I played Everquest. I know I played Action Quake 2 a lot in 1998. But in all truth, Everquest was my first bonafide MMORPG.
My favorite MMO now is Wurm Online. But what bugs me is it has a lot in common with Everquest and Ultima ONline. I of course played Ultima Online in 1999, after I'd played Everquest. When I played Wurm Onilne in 2012, I was convinced it was the best most immersive MMO I'd ever played. Sure, the world didn't have the lore and dungeons and RPG features of Everquest, but it beat it in nearly every other way. But all that aside, am I drawn to it because it's similar to Everquest or Ultima Online?
My opinion is I have preferences which I've honed for 20 years. These preferences are built on all the games I've played. I've liked things in many different games. I liked things about Diablo, Action Quake 2, Everquest and Ultima Online and the sinlge player games like Master of Orion and Myst. But the thing is, I don't chagne dramatically just because I get older. The end result is, I'm drawn to games similar to older games because they share traits and my preference for those traits isn't changing much. So call it what you want, but just labeling it nostalgia is explaining it away, expecting it'll go away, but in fact it won't, it doesn't, it keeps coming back.
EDIT: What gets missed in this "It's all rose tinted glasses!" discussion is I can recall back in 1999 not likin Everquest's strict class system. I preferred Ultima Online's skill-based system. I also preferred the sandbox in Ultima Online, being able to build your own house and employ merchants to sell your wares. If I ONLY like my first MMO then how come there were many things in Ultima Online I preferred? I also favored the items in Diablo. I liked how they were random and I liked gear sets. I did like unique items, but I thought Everquest would have benefited from some random items too. I liked the first-person shooting in Quake 2, it was so fast paced and tense. Everquest was slower more methodical. Playing Everquest didn't make me suddenly not like it.
SAN DIEGO, CA - August 1, 2000 - Sony Online Entertainment and Verant
Interactive, announced today that its highly anticipated EverQuestâ„¢:
The Scars of Veliousâ„¢ expansion pack, which is the second add-on to
the most successful online role playing game ever released - EverQuest -
will be available in Winter 2000. The expansion pack will provide the
more than 270,000 current EverQuest gamers with an all-new frozen
continent, more than 16 new adventure zones, numerous new creatures,
additional spells and weapons and an enhanced 3D game engine.
==
And this is SOE's press release for Luclin launch December 2001:
Sony Online Entertainment - 12/03/2001
Sony Online Entertainment Inc., a worldwide leader in massively multiplayer online gaming, announced today that EverQuest®: The Shadows of Luclin™ will be available at retail stores tomorrow. The enchanting moonscape of Luclin will provide more than 400,000 current EverQuest players with over 27 new adventure zones, all-new items, creatures, spells, a new playable character race and rideable horses. Supported by a complete graphic overhaul, the enhanced gameplay featured in Luclin will allow EverQuest players to witness their world in unprecedented splendor.
==
SOE December 10th 2001 Luclin sells well with concurrent user number:
Sony Online Entertainment Inc., today announced that EverQuest®: The Shadows of Luclin™ sold more than 120,000 units in the first day at retail, making this one of the largest PC game debuts in history. Luclin, the newest expansion pack to EverQuest, the world's most successful massively multiplayer online role-playing game, was made available nationwide on December 4, 2001. Set against a sweeping moonscape, The Shadows of Luclin provides players with more than 27 new adventure zones, all-new items, over 400 new quests, creatures, spells, a new playable character race and rideable horses. Currently, EverQuest boasts more than 400,000 active subscribers and has as many as 98,000 online adventurers exploring the fantasy world of Norrath simultaneously.
==This is July 2002 when EQ broke concurrent users record:
==
EQ growth announcement after launch of Ykesha March 2003:
==
And this marks the last time SOE announced EQ subscription numbers March 2004, and it showed a dip from 2003 announcements:
==
TL;DR EQ grew and peaked in 2003, and after that it started to lose players. Contrary to some die hard old school EQ players like to believe, EQ did not peak during classic, Kunark, or Velious (the original 3 that some swear by). It kept growing beyond expansions that they personally didn't like. By the way you can read all SOE press releases here: https://www.sony.com/en_us/SCA/company-news/press-releases/sony-online-entertainment/2001.html
The 500k or 750k numbers tossed around was SOE's press releases counting all SOE subscribers, not subscribers to a specific game. SOE's release of a competing product in EQ2 screwed EQ. EQ needed an engine upgrade, facelift, modernized UI/features, and support for fun things such as PvP. SOE split its playerbase and eventually people left for greener pastures.
Played: EQ1-AC1-DAOC-FFXI-L2-EQ2-WoW-LOTR-VG-WAR-GW2-ESO-BDO
Waiting For: CU & Vanilla WoW
Disclaimer
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
Offering an alternate perspective. And this is coming from an old school, "EQ was my first" Everquest player. When WoW launched, many didn't consier it "EQ light". Many EQ players at the time consider WoW an "EQ on steroids". Remember this was vanilla WoW we're talking about here.
Vanilla WoW supported large scale raids (40 players), with pretty raid UI, engaging and smooth combat, and a seamless world without "zoning please wait". On PvP servers it was even more exciting as players fought Alliance vs Horde, pushing zergs of players back & forth between towns and cities. Action happened anywhere and everywhere.
Late level dungeons such as Upper BRS was like a mini raid, something EQ didn't have. EQ was always a single group or raid sort of content. Upper BRS supported 15 players, it required precise pulls, crowd control, good healing, good split tanking, and very often creative kiting. A bad cc meant a wipe, it was in every way very much like EQ, but simply more engaging and more fun. Especially with scripted events and bosses.
WoW fixed up what was tedious & outdated about EQ, and made a game that felt like EQ but simply performed, looked, and functioned better. It was a fun game if people could take salt out of their mouths and actually gave it a good try back then. Your mileage may vary but WoW was fun for me up through Burning Crusade 'til the launch of Wotlk (I actually played Wotlk a bit and enjoyed it somewhat but I didn't finish it).
EQ could've competed longer on the market and lived longer had SOE not created an EQ2 and put EQ on milk status. For people clinging on to old school EQ, it's easy to forget what made EQ great. And no 12 hour loot camps, kill stealing, training, staring at the spellbook, "zoning please wait", and ninja looting weren't it.
Played: EQ1-AC1-DAOC-FFXI-L2-EQ2-WoW-LOTR-VG-WAR-GW2-ESO-BDO
Waiting For: CU & Vanilla WoW
When a game is growing at that rate, and then basically flat-lined staying around 400-450 and even losing players at times, that is not evidence that things got better. That is a drastic loss of momentum. There was a reason for that. The game changed.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
However after EQ2 i have not seen an improvement on the mmoprpg genre,just bits and pieces but those same games have been worse in otehr areas of game design so 5% improvement and 95% worse really shows me the industry has been terribly stagnant.
With the high cost of game design,there is a way bigger push towards CHEAP game design and the mobile market has ruined it even more because that genre is making multi millions from really cheap games.
So how do we get the mmorpg genre to advance and improve when so many markets are getting rich with easy street?Really tough question,i can't think of much outside of getting huge sponsors to back these games with exclusives to promote the sponsors.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
Everquest was truly special, not only because it was the first 1st person 3D MMORPG, but that is was challenging and made you think.
EQ: There were no maps. After EQ: Maps are standard.
EQ actually forced you to explore and remember areas. Cartography was an actual hobby for some players. I cannot stress how important it is to NOT have maps in a fantasy game. Running through Kithicor forest for the first time at night and making it without dying is what makes a world experience. Meeting up with a friend who traveled from another continent without a map is what makes a world experience.
EQ: Good death penalty. After EQ: Death means very little.
If you don't risk anything, there is little excitement in knowing that no matter what you do, everything will be fine. A strong death penalty is a cornerstone of a great game.
EQ: Extremely diverse classes that don't overlap. After EQ: everyone can almost do everything.
Being a specialist is a GOOD thing. It makes you proud of your craft. It makes you proud of your character. You have a strong identity to your character. Something you don't get in today's jack of all trades, I can solo everything classes.
EQ: You needed a group, or even multiple groups (raids) to do a lot of stiff. After EQ: In many MMORPG's today you could not need to interact or talk to a single person the entire time and get far. Socialization and working as a team to accomplish DIFFICULT tasks is what makes a great game.
EQ: In early EQ, travel took time and/or social interaction. After EQ: you basically just blink and can be anywhere you want.
EQ had a different kind of player. A player that was intelligent, patient, cunning and could dedicate a lot of time to endeavors. Today's MMORPG's are about instant gratification, hand holding, and basically any instrument that can be devised to remove difficulty, thought and skill.
For myself, the greatest game ever made was original EQ and into Kunark, slightly leaning into Velious. Oh, and being a Tallon' Zek PvP EQ player, the dynamics of EQ PVP, with zone control and faction warfare was incredible.
If Pantheon can even create half of the Everquest experience, I'll sign up.
These days though they bitch about wanting things back the way they used to be.... irony, I don't think so.
People just like to bitch about things they don't like when it would be better if they shut their mouths and went elsewhere, cause one mans trash is another mans treasure. Constructive criticism should be...... constructive, unfortunately old school developers listened to alot of these asshats that would spout inane bs about changing this and that (blah, blah) and ruined many great MMO games worth their salt.
Ultimately it's about making money and this industry is still relatively young. Just wish people could come together to support some of that classic old school shit we used to love and quit bitching when we have a living breathing virtual world we can live in to escape the real world long enough to not go insane.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
MAGA
I jumped ship from EQ to EQ2 as soon as it launched, and it never felt like EQ.
It was like a different kind of game.
But to be fair I liked EQ2 Vanilla as much as I liked EQ, for different reasons.
Even if there were features I missed from EQ, I stuck with EQ2 because of the better graphics and much...much better UI.
For me the UI is very important, I even made a thread on the subject, I really hope Pantheon gets the UI right and don't understimate it (Like SotA did).
Absolutely! In fact, I was going to mention auto-mapping in my original post, but it was already long enough. If the goal is realism, then auto-mapping is a terrible idea. Our brains don't work that way. That's why I said in my follow-up post that I am able to remember many of the landmarks in the original EQ because that's how I learned my way around the world. It was tedious at first, but once I had memorized the landscape, it was very satisfying to know that I had gotten the lay of the land.
I do believe thee is a way to reach a compromise on this matter; make mapping a skill that can be acquired. And then make it unique to the ranger class. And even then, don't do it the way games usually do it where they place a big dot on the map that says, "You are here!". Even in real life, maps don't do that (maybe GPS systems, but not maps). So, once a ranger enters a new area, if he has the skill, the computer starts mapping it for him. But it simply maps the land, no dots. That way, when he pulls up the map, he can see what the area looks like but sill has to figure out where he is based on landmarks. It keeps the game realistic and makes the ranger class more highly valued.
Which leads me to your other point about class diversity. I completely agree and totally reject the concept of "class balancing". I understand why balancing is done, it makes each class self-sufficient so they can go off and solo on their own. It's also considered necessary in PvP games. But I like the idea of each class having their own strengths and weaknesses because it's more realistic. I remember very early in my days of playing EQ, I asked my brother (who had started playing before me) who he thought the strongest class in the game was. He said he thought it was close between necros and enchanters. I played a ranger and it didn't bother me a bit that there were other classes out there that might be more powerful than mine. All I concentrated on was making my character as powerful as possible.
I gave EQ2 two months at release then went to WOW. Spent at ton of time in wow.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
What changed was very simply more MMO's came out, and EQ was no longer that "new, unique, one of a kind" toy. The amount of people playing MMORPG's at the time was much smaller than today. So when DAOC launched in October 2001 and grew to 250k subscribers during its peak, also FFXI's launch in May 2002, they all siphoned from existing EQ players. I was among many who branched off away from EQ to play all those new MMO's that came out after it.
You could blame the changes within the game. But if we are talking population graphs and peaks, you are wrong when you stated EQ peaked at Velious. Going by official press releases, EQ's subscriber count continued to grow past 2001 through 2003, and only started to dip in 2004. EQ breaking the concurrent user record in July 2002 and again in March 2003 also proves its continued growth.
Did the growth slow down? Sure. But again, more MMO's came out, more choices came out. Even SOE stated that EQ gained an average of 250k new subscribers each year from 1999-2004, so its growth didn't necessarily slow down. But rather more people branched off to play other MMO's. This is why it really hurt EQ when EQ2 launched and split the Everquest fanbase.
Only reason I went through all this and showed old press releases is too often die hard old old school EQ players like to prop up EQ trilogy and suggest somehow EQ's downfall was due to Luclin or PoP expansions. I myself left EQ during Velious to play DAOC, only came back halfway through Luclin to try out the new expansion. Bottom line is EQ was this new, unique, one of a kind game when it launched. But then it wasn't, more MMO's came out, people started to have more choices. This along with how SOE steered away from their flagship to build an EQ2 hurt EQ more than anything else. Smed made bad decisions with SOE, he ran SOE to the ground, EQ and many other games suffered as a result.
Played: EQ1-AC1-DAOC-FFXI-L2-EQ2-WoW-LOTR-VG-WAR-GW2-ESO-BDO
Waiting For: CU & Vanilla WoW
We've all seen how whenever Blizzard releases a new game, they make a strong effort to avoid genres they already have a foothold in.
SOE on the other hand had a bad habit of cannibalizing its own products. It wasn't just EQ2, but games like SWG, etc., also drew people away from EQ.
All that said, WoW really ate EQ alive from my little pocket world. Pretty much every one of my friends who was still in EQ bailed when WoW went into beta/launched. That was when I left EQ, to join all my friends.
The problem with restricted or absent maps is players complain about it so much. It's almost impossible to have any restriction. It requires so much guts and stubborness nobody wants to do it.
Wurm Online is one of hte few MMO's I know of restricting its maps. In fact, when I started in 2012, it had no maps, except raw map dumps on the web 6 months old. Keep in mind the map in Wurm Online is always changing because of random fluctuations in the code and player terraforming and building. It added a map in 2014 but it only shows minimal information and has no GPS. Rolf, being lead developer, gets a lot of flack even from the niche community. I support the restrictions.
So the result is my hopes are very low for any future MMO to have restrictions. If this very niche MMO is strained to do it, bigger ones won't.
One of hte problems with in-game maps is they don't do very good at handling 3d maps with lots of (vertical) twists and turns. Everquest handled this by having a z-level and still it was cumbersome. This makes me think of the old automaps in Daggerfall for the dungeons. They were confusing. I think the negative tendency then is for MMO's to oversimplify their maps to counter this "problem".
Personally, I think a map system should be something like this:
1. No GPS (dots on the map) or in-game radar. This is huge.
2. A simple to understand data format for the map files
3. Reliance on players outside the game to improve the maps
4. Allow players in the game to copy and trade their maps for a price (or free)
5. The developers can release some base maps for major regions to get players going
6. No complex z-level in-game map viewer or automapping.
* A distant example of what I"m thinking of are the player-made maps for Anarchy Online
* (cont) Z-level is handled by showing the different levels on the borders of the map
* (cont) Admittedly, this still doesn't handle the very complex z-level maps
* So the map viewer is basically just a variable-size image viewer
* (cont) The image is linked to a regional identification (like qeynos_sewer1)
My opinions only. I only speak for myself. Also of course my ideal MMO's have a sandbox too, like Wurm Online. Even though I look forward to Pantheon and support it fully, I still wish it had terraformable terrain and player-made villages. I understand MMO's can't do everything. They need to focus to do well.
I am betting that drop off starting in 2010 shows a real tank from 2014 to 2017.
And then every other MMO that I played since got progressively worse (except Vanguard was a good game, but obviously, still had flaws).
To give you an out, I will say I believe Velious was actually part of the problem and it can actually be seen on the sub graphs. The issue was that the game was changing from a group-centric game, to a raid centric game. Velious had enough group content and progression to keep people occupied, but really was more about raiding. Catering to raiders was a bad decision, because they were the minority in EQ. Being funneled into "end game" was not what EQ was ever supposed to be about.
After that, that mistake became even more pronounced in the expansions that followed, while accessibility was introduced and EQ was downgraded from a virtual world to just a video game.